how we understand God to behave in connection with people, but also in telling us what we would expect to result. For example, those who believe that God dictates the precise words that a prophet or other inspired writer puts on paper must in turn believe that those words, and not just the message they express, are important, and that they must always be the best words for the purpose.
On the other hand, someone who believes that people receive impressions from God and then express them in human words will place a greater emphasis on the human side of the equation. The message is important, and it may be illuminated by knowing the person who speaks along with his or her cultural background and spiritual experience.
As the author of Hebrews expressed it:
1In old times God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets in many portions and in different ways. 2In these last days, however, he has spoken to us through a Son, one whom he has made heir of everything, and through whom also he created the universe. 3This Son is the brightness of his glory and the exact representation of his real essence. He sustains everything by his powerful word. He performed a cleansing from sins and sat down at the right hand of majesty in the {spiritual/heavenly} heights. — Hebrews 1:1-3 (HN)
God’s message came at different times and in different ways, a process that, according to the author of Hebrews, culminated in God’s message coming through a person, Jesus. In Hebrews 4:12 he continues by calling the Word “alive and active” again referring to the Word of God as portrayed in Jesus. Those who place a heavy emphasis on the words, rather than the message, should give serious consideration to the view of revelation expressed in the book of Hebrews. According to this one scriptural author, whom most scholars leave unidentified, inspiration doesn’t always work the same way.
I would suggest that instead of looking for statements about how inspiration works in the scriptures, we should look at the scriptures themselves. There are many clues as to how inspiration works in the stories and the records of those who were inspired. There is no good reason to assume that those who experienced inspiration would also feel it necessary to define it. In fact, when we look at the scriptures we see no real effort to provide us with a theory of inspiration. There were simply people who claimed that they had a message from God, and they expressed it with some force under their various circumstances.
If we look at the evidence of the text itself it doesn’t seem that in many cases we have words dictated by God. There are passages that claim to be “words of God” and others that don't. Perhaps it would be best to respect that distinction.
Other than Moses bringing the tablets of the law from Mt. Sinai, we don’t have material actually written by God. Moses himself has various scribes chronicle the activities of the Israelites as they travel through the wilderness (Genesis 17:14, for example). This would appear contradictory to the notion that Moses himself wrote the Pentateuch, or that it was delivered as a whole by God to Moses. What need of scribes to record the details if God had provided the words already?
Elsewhere in scripture we have communication given through dreams, visions, direct prophetic oracles, and research. The books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles make reference to previously existing sources. Luke, in his gospel, makes a point of the research that he provided. John the Revelator seems to have concocted a special form of Greek, unless one assumes he simply made an exceptional number of errors in grammar, in writing the book of Revelation. I would suggest it is because he is so excited in the emotional state that results from receiving the vision, and that he struggles with words as he tries to describe what he has experienced. This again is far from verbal dictation.
We have prayers and stories that seem to express ungodly views such as Psalm 137:8-9 and parts of Judges 4-5. In Psalm 137 the Israelites wish that the children of the Babylonians be treated as they have been treated. This is a natural desire, but not exactly a forgiving one. In Judges 4 and 5 Jael receives the Canaanite king of Hazor as a guest and then murders him by stealth. Her actions are celebrated.
We have variations in similar stories that can be observed by comparing Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, or the four gospels in many cases. Clearly there is something more than verbal dictation going on here. In fact, there seem to be quite a number of “somethings” going on.
If you accept the Bible as your sacred book, you will likely also have to come to the conclusion that God has spoken in times past in very many different portions and in very many different ways.
Revelation in the Natural World
The term general revelation is used to refer to the information that is available about God simply because he is the creator. Just as an architect, an engineer, or an artist will reflect some of himself in his work, so God is reflected in what he creates.
Commonly general revelation is seen to occur also through history, but I believe that in history and personal experience general revelation overlaps special revelation. In fact, what we call special revelation is simply a recording of an individual's experience with God.3 The two forms do not overlap completely. By observing that we live in a particular type of universe, I can make certain assumptions about God's character, but never in detail, and rarely very specifically.
Special revelation lets me know much more specifically how it is that God relates to me at my particular time and place. If God speaks to me directly, that is special revelation. If God gives me a sign, that is also special revelation. This can, of course be extended to groups, churches, and nations. (My particular way of phrasing this is guided by my desire to answer the question I asked in the preface: How can I know God's will for me? For a more nuanced definition, consult a theological dictionary.)
I said earlier that we tend to separate a doctrine of the Bible from a more general doctrine of how God communicates. If we ignore the way in which God communicates through the natural world, we will have similar problems. God expects us to be informed by all of the means of communication that he has provided.
As an illustration I recall a seminar on spiritual gifts, especially those gifts that involved speaking God's word, whether speaking prophetically or teaching from scripture. At one point a class member asked how they could know a certain thing about another person in the congregation. The question was asked with the best of intentions—the questioner wanted to know the best way to be of service to that person. Could she ask the Lord for a word, or a sign, and expect to get that information? I asked her what would be wrong with simply asking the person. She was ignoring one part of God's creation—our ability to speak, hear, and understand, in favor of a supernatural solution.
But the revelation through prophets, the supernatural revelation, and even the revelation through the person of Jesus Christ is not the whole of God’s revelation. Paul tells us: “For [God’s] invisible attributes, his unending power and divinity, have been understood and seen since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20). I would suggest that this is a neglected text. Just how much can one learn simply from the creation without the benefit of direct revelation? Paul seems to think this revelation is sufficient that there is no excuse for missing the essentials of this revelation. Thus apparently one can derive from God’s created things sufficient information to come into favor with God and thus for salvation, and this is clear enough that one cannot be excused for failing to understand. I don’t think we give enough weight to the implications of this passage in Romans.
In particular, some Christians would hold that Paul's “without excuse,” is theoretical. While the information is there, we are so perverse that we cannot actually see it. Thus we are “without excuse” but we have the excuse that we are actually incapable of comprehending the information that makes us “without excuse.” It kind of goes round and round. Certain interpretations of original sin lead to this conclusion, in which humanity is to be blamed for sinning,
